Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation

by Michael Scott Horton (Editor)

Book by

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Dr. Horton has taught apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1998. In addition to his work at the Seminary, he is the president of White Horse Inn, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. Before coming to WSC, Dr. Horton completed a research fellowship at Yale University Divinity School. Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than twenty books, including a series of studies in Reformed dogmatics published by Westminster John Knox.

Reviews

[Terrence D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found the book to be overall informative, and many of the negative reviews here and elsewhere (eg Amazon) dishonest and uncharitable. The context in which the book was written took place prior to later editions of MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" (TGATJ). The editor of the book, Micheal Horton, even kept MacArthur apprised of the content. So it's not like this book was an attack on MacArthur from out in left-field; pardon the idiom

To my amazement, the book was actually less about John MacArthur's works and more about an ongoing controversy that predates the Protestant Reformation concerning the definitions of Justification and Sanctification, and the place of works in the Christian faith. John MacArthur, and to a lesser extent, Zane Hodges, were the initial focus of this work, but further along in the book, the various authors reach back in to history to uncover a greater controversy bigger than them.

Being a collection of essays, it is easy to feel as though the book is fragmentary, but it seemed to flow quite well. Some authors were more aggressive than others, but they all maintained and honest appeal to history and a right representation of those whom they criticized.

Anyone who's studied Christian historical theology to any meaningful depth should have already realized going in that MacArthur and Hodges (and Dispensationalists in general) are outside of historic Christianity in how they define faith in toto. This isn't a dig or an insult. Their Biblicism prevents him from approaching the text with what Craig Carter calls "The Great Tradition;" the pre-critical method of exegesis. Dispensationalists approach the text with the same modernist naivete as Higher Textual critics — with the misleading notion of objectivity (actual textual criticism aside). I don't know how else to describe it, really. It's simply a break from the Christian tradition and an appeal to supposed lacking theological and philosophical presuppositions.

I can understand why this would be upsetting to some, but it's the reality of the matter. The book was written by authors who subscribe to an altogether different system of Biblical interpretation and a framework akin to the Reformers and earlier Christians. Their criticisms were made in light of this, and historical definitions.

[John Boyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christ the Lord is a collection of essays edited by Dr. Michael Horton that focus primarily on the debate that has taken place over the last couple of decades between Zane Hodges and John McArthur. The debate surrounds the concept of Lordship Salvation that has had a historical divide between theologians that profess a more antinomian view of salvation and the Confessional Reformed view that stems from the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. However, these essays show how McArthur, while attempting to defend the classical reformed view, has made several key errors that result in a much more legalistic form of theology that creates a tension in the life of the believer. The main theological focal point, as it has been for the last five hundred years, has been in regards to the biblical view of justification by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. While Hodge's view are clearly viewed as existing outside of the reformed tradition and biblical evidence by creating an easy believeism for some and dividing the church in spiritual believers and carnal believers; McArthur's view becomes much more nuanced through a very slight change in the traditional definition of Christian faith. Traditionally, Christian faith has been viewed as containing three principle aspects: the first is knowledge, (i.e. a rational understanding of the facts of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection) assent, (i.e. a belief that those facts are indeed true) and trust (i.e. a belief that those facts are true to you and necessary for your own salvation). What McArthur changes in his definition of faith involves the third aspect of the traditional definition of faith. Instead of trust, McArthur adds a willingness to obey God's commands. The authors of the essays go on to explain how this change in the definition of faith creates in the believer a need to follow a legalistic path of sanctification where the standard for obedience is a never ending goal post. This creates a burden on the life of the believer instead of the freedom that the gospel provides through God given grace and faith. The essays are challenging to read but worth it to understand this debate and the role is has historically played as well as how to effects the modern evangelical church. A great read for laymen theologians and people interested in church history.

[Jake Stone · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a timely read and much needed in our days. Horton notes upfront that he had been in communication with John MacArthur and MacArthur was receptive to some of the critiques as shown in the 2nd edition of “The Gospel According to Jesus.”

The book mainly though does not focus on MacArthur but how debates over justification and sanctification in the 16th century are just as relevant today. Many Christians are told the Bible is “a recipe book for Christian living” rather than a redemptive revelation centered on the person and work of Christ. This book deals with these issues in a biblical, theological, and historical way.

I agree with the different contributors that much of 20th and now 21st century American Christianity needs to be tossed and a retrieval is sorely needed of the historic, confessional Protestant faith. This work helps move us to that end.

[Brenden Wentworth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Horton on Union with Christ, Rod Rosenbladt’s chapter on “Jesus died for the sins of Christians too”, and the appendix of 10 propositions are alone worth the price of the book

So good and a must read

[Paddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic book! I wish I had read this earlier

[Troy Nevitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent treatment of the Lordship Salvation controversy, showing the dangerous errors of Hodge, and the major misstep taken by MacArthur.

Their middle-of-the-road view is well thought out and very kindly explained.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

"There are not two kinds of Christians [carnal vs. spiritual] , although there are Christians at every conceivable stage of advancement towards the one goal to which all are bound and at which all shall arrive." — Warfield

“…God will sentence and convict you in the light of your works [because] these reveal either that you have or have not believed.” — Luther

"...repentance will never unite us to Christ, nor will repentance ever justify us. We cannot be saved without it, yet we are not saved by it." — Riddlebarger

"...I would argue that the reason so many unbelievers can sit comfortably in our churches and even call themselves born-again Christians is that we have given them very little to deny." — Horton

“Discipleship is given to and required of all the justified, but it is not itself the good news in which we place our confidence, trust, and hope.” — Horton

Excellent, clarifying, wise. I've been meaning to get to this for ages but have struggled to get a copy. It did not disappoint, and I would say this is one of the most important books I've read in my Christian journey. I grew up in the non-Lordship/DTS/Free-Grace/Hodges (whatever you want to call it) view and got saved at 18 watching Paul Washer's "Shocking Youth Message," which clarified for me that works should be understood as an essential part of the Christian life as evidence of regeneration rather than the grounds of justification. I read MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus as a 22 year old and loved it. All of this is good and true, but needs to handled with care lest one functionally collapse justification and sanctification (while affirming their distinction in theory) and view Christ's throne of grace as having bouncers in front of it keeping you away until you shape up. The logic of this can be devastating for assurance of salvation.

In light of that, this work resonated with me. Horton (and other contributors) grew up with similar theology to me. Their critique of non-Lordship theology is strongly worded but fair. Not only is it antinomian, but a new concoction of it that centres the human will and not the grace of God. Genuine Christians can believe for three minutes and become a lifelong Hindu and still be "saved." Breaking out of this mere "carnal Christian" state into a "spiritual Christian" state is completely dependant upon human choice. It envisions a Christ who is unable to accomplish his purposes in our lives. It urges Christians to strive for a state of being that Paul says is currently ours in Christ.

But in our concern to avoid separating justification from sanctification, zealous Christians can make the opposite mistake of blurring them. John MacArthur, the contributors argue, has occasionally been unhelpful here.* To be sure, they are clear that MacArthur is on the right track, drawing from the right schools of thought, and resisting a serious error. At times though MacArthur has made statements that imply or outright state that obedience is part of faith, rather than a fruit of it. This has led to troubling statements about justification, a misunderstanding (at best) of Berkhof on faith, and some interesting hermeneutical approaches, which can be pastorally pretty crushing.

For those interested, because I was, I would lay that views out on a spectrum like this:

Hodges--------------------------Horton--MacArthur

Highly recommended




*It's probably helpful to point out that this book came out in the early 90s. It interacts with early editions of The Gospel According to Jesus as well as older radio broadcast transcripts. The book has gone through multiple printings since then and MacArthur and Horton have worked together and also hosted conferences together. Even in this book, the contributors commend MacArthur for being humble and teachable in these issues.

[Sean Rhoades · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is interesting about this debate is that both sides claim to be heirs of the Reformation, but both sides are adamant Biblicists. That is, while they claim to read the Bible on its own terms without any external influence, they appeal (often wrongly) to outside influence.

"The evangelical movement in America must begin reading from the Reformers instead of pretending that they are only committed to Bible, without any system of doctrine, when it is clear what books, tapes, and sermons have shaped their faith and practice" (208) - Rod Rosenbladt

"Part of the answer is that evangelical Christians on the whole have become very ignorant about church history. With what can only be called pride, many have thought that they could dig all of God's truth out of the Bible by themselves. They have neglected the treasures of insight into God's Word that have accumulated from the labors of brothers and sisters over the centuries. They have insisted on reinventing the wheel in our generation - and they have not managed to make it round" (120 - W. Robert Godfrey

[Deb · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not very accurate, just as the preface states. Horton admits that MacArthur modified his first edition from the 80’s prior to Horton’s book being published. Previously MacArthur used stronger and potentially confusing terms in reaction to double-stage salvation Arminianism of Hodge and Ryrie.

While I'm not much of a fan of MacArthur and certainly don't agree with his leaky dispensationalism, it’s important to note that the entire so-called lordship controversy was started by antinomians and put down by the efforts of theological teachers like MacArthur, Boice, Sproul, and Packer by addressing the heresy being put forth by Hodge and Ryrie and others in the "free grace" movement.
Perhaps the most perplexing issue of all is the total lack of exegetical engagement with the Scriptures themselves. Sad work by Horton and company.
This out-of-publication edition of Christ is Lord continues to circulate, despite its unhelpfulness and inaccuracies. The best recommendation would be for others to cease and desist on recommending it further.

[Han · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far one of the best books I’ve ever read. It took me a hot minute to finish because when I started it I had no framework to decode the language. It was a serious mental strain to even read a paragraph. Since I’ve been reading this book over the course of two years I’ve grown a lot and the book became easier to digest.

Highly recommend to anyone who comes from a background in Lordship salvation.

I will 100% return to this book.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Choppy. Some sections engage in nuanced and "vain disputations," while others clearly proclaim the sole sufficiency of Christ for salvation and sanctification. This volume highlights divisions within the Church, and does not give enough focus on the broad unity in the Church. For example, and in more than one place, Warfield B.B. heavily criticizes John Wesley for his Arminianism. Yet, if Wesley is that far off base, how do we account for his 50 years of preaching, and being credited in some quarters with being the head of a great revival in England, sparing that country from the worst of the anti-Christian crusade of the Philosophes. Not to mention that Wesley many times faced physical persecution and even the threat of death. While I agree that correct doctrines of salvation and sanctification are mission critical, so to speak, I am not convinced that bashing opponents whose lives demonstrate a Spirit led life and ministry is where we should be expending resources. Also, the debates in this book are probably beyond the ability (or interest) of ordinary practicing believers. In fact, were it not for reading foisted on me by my academic son, I would not have had enough background to follow the arguments in this book, and my reading is beyond most fellow believers.

Read this book (and read background materials as needed so you understand this book), but respond to other believers with encouragement and unity, to the extent possible, though remaining, as always, true to the Word.

[Kevin Lara · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book helpful to clarify some of my own thoughts about the issue of "Lordship salvation". Namely, what is the relationship between faith and works? What is the relationship between faith and repentance? What is faith? What is repentance?

The authors in unison denounce Zane Hodge's teaching as being out of step with the Orthodox understanding​, nevertheless they come back and say that pastor John MacArthur has also made some mistakes, although not as grievous, in his book The Gospel According to Jesus, especially because when it comes to the definition of faith.

Some have complained that the book doesn't take a more exegetical approach. I think this is an unfair criticism given that the authors clearly state their intention to take a more confessional approach to the questions at hand. Horton clearly states in the prologue that, since both authors (Hodges and MacArthur) claim to have the reformers on their side, they will take a more historical approach to see what the reformers really said. So the book should be graded, I think, according to the intention the author set himself to accomplish. In this case it was to review the issue from a confessional/historical-theology approach. And I think they were successful at that.

On the other hand, my only criticism would be that, it seems to me, the times that they did make reference to Scripture, in a few occasions it seemed to me was stretching the meaning of the text to fit the the theological​ understanding. But again, only in a few places, maybe 1 or 2 times in the whole book. That is only my perception​.

Overall I though it was a great book. I think it will help you understand a lot if you want to have a clear understanding of the issues at hand on the debate of the "Lordship Controversy".

[Stephen Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed look at the Lordship debates from a Reformed perspective. The authors situate this disagreement as an intra-dispensational debate proceeding as an outgrowth of Chafer's creation of the "carnal Christian" category decades earlier. However, in relation to broader currents, the Lordship debates correspond to previous debates against the antinomians, which includes some overreactions by those who let repentance and other works creep into the definition of faith as it relates to justification. This book reminds us that clear theological definitions are actually very important and have significant influence on your spiritual life. Too often we can lapse into allowing "saved" to become synonymous with "justified", thus collapsing the renewal of the new birth into justifying faith and creating a Protestant approximation of the Roman doctrine. If you're going to remain genuinely Protestant, these kinds of distinctions are meaningful and not to be dismissed lightly. On the other hand, one can also become so insistent on maintaining Protestant slogans that you can miss the fullness of the biblical witness about the necessity of good works in the life of a believer in order to preserve sola fide. As with most important doctrines, you have to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis, and to do so faithfully requires greater attention to faithful voices from the past, as this book does well. As with many books from multiple contributors, this book sometimes suffers from being repetitive, and at other times is too simplistic, particularly in discussing the law/gospel distinction, but mostly is a good guide for working through an important American debate that still has pastoral implications today.

[Ryan Vinten · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though written 30 years ago this book goes a long way in explaining the state of the church - even in its most conservative Calvinistic quarters. The reason for that is simple. A lack of clarity on the most fundamental and basic matter of justification and its relationship to affections/works/repentance remains rife. Moreover a lack of courage to confront this lack of clarity remains with it.

It is into that lack of clarity - and with courage - this book speaks clearly. I can think of few things more helpful to the average Christian than picking it up and reading it.

[Katelyn Baddeley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am still discovering how much this book has changed my thinking about the distinction between law and gospel. It was a more challenging read for me, but thankful I did it. I am hoping to re-read this one in a few years.

[Clayton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another book that my pastor recommended and yes it made me think about a lot. A lot that I agree with and see, but some of the writing was a bit challenging to get through so that really weighed it down for me. I just couldn't stay interested, beyond a few points

[E.D. Burns · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for those who are battling the extremes of neonomism, and it will refresh the reader in the gospel of grace. I wish I would have read this years earlier.

[Eagle Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wish I read it 20 years ago.

[Shaun Marksbury · Rating 3 out of 5]

Michael Horton’s _Christ the Lord_ was an enjoyable but confusing read. Entire sections were edifying, while others left me scratching my head. What is going on here?

The positives in this book are many. In no particular order: the affirmation of the Reformer’s views on forensic justification and _sola fide_ proved helpful. The historical breakdown of the lordship debate, dating back to B. B. Warfield and well before that, was extremely helpful. Perhaps because I recently finished Andy Naselli’s _Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology_, I found the link between the “no lordship” position and Keswick to be very informative. Moreover, the criticism of the “free grace” position, especially that of Zane Hodges, demonstrates the starkest contrast between that and Scripture. Finally, the book culminates well in the first appendix in its “Ten Propositions,” which alone is worth the price of the book. There are other gems, as well, that made me glad to have read this book.

Even so, there are criticisms this book deserves. The first may seem chronologically snobbish: it is an older book. Now, that’s not always a criticism, but Horton’s arguments are built on the first edition of _The Gospel According to Jesus_. For instance, Horton critiqued MacArthur’s alleged misquotation of Berkhof (40); the 2008 _The Gospel According to Jesus_ has this corrected. MacArthur also makes the problem of the rich young ruler clearer in my view—doing the “right things” did not correct the fact that he was blind to his own sin and need for Christ. MacArthur also added a whole chapter on justification by faith in the second edition of _The Gospel According to Jesus_, not to mention what he wrote in _Faith Works_. Indeed, these works were already underway before the publication of _Christ the Lord _. In total, the question remains whether Horton and the others would lob such criticism today, and the answer is no.

Second, there’s a definitive lack of substance to Horton’s claims at the time he published it. For Horton and the rest to say that MacArthur could be clearer is no great criticism and, as demonstrated, easily correctable. Moreover, this book places its crosshairs on dispensationalism, frequently citing the eschatological system as somehow explanatory of the issues addressed in the soteriological discussion (a category error that is no more fair than when dispensationalists accuse covenant theologians of being anti-Semitic).

More to the point, the underlying implication of MacArthur’s alleged misunderstanding of justification is completely unfounded. I’m told that Horton received an advanced copy of the chapter on justification from MacArthur’s _Faith Works_ before _Christ the Lord_ was published. As a result, Horton softened his criticisms of MacArthur that he had originally published in _Modern Reformation_. As such, Horton and MacArthur have also collaborated since the publication of _Christ the Lord_. While Horton and MacArthur do not always express thoughts in the same way, no one today could produce an example of where they disagree on the essentials of the faith, justification or otherwise.

In conclusion, you will benefit from reading this book. Even so, understand the intrinsic weaknesses and, dare I say, errors, in how _Christ the Lord_ presents John MacArthur’s lordship position. So, feel no shame in having an updated copy of _The Gospel According to Jesus_ on your shelf next to it. Because, at the end of the day, with some minor differences aside, they both teach the same position on justification by faith and the lordship of Christ.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Summary:

A collection of essays in response to the controversy between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges. MacArthur favors the Lordship-salvation position and says that true, saving faith includes obedience. Zane Hodges says that faith is merely intellectual assent and it does not include obedience.

The authors of the essays in this book argue against both MacArthur and Hodges. Critiquing MacArthur, they point out that while obedience follows faith, it is not itself a part of faith. Critiquing Hodges, they point out that faith is not merely intellectual assent; rather, it has three components: knowledge, assent, and trust. And, contrary to Hodges, obedience will result from true, saving faith. The book is broken into two sections. The first part looks at Scripture and the second part looks at the history of the debate as it developed in the Reformers and then the Puritans.

Analysis:

Exegetically, the book is weak. In fact the majority of the book is spent describing the position of Hodges and MacArthur and then of the positions as they existed in history (e.g. Warfield vs. Chafer). Much less time is spent describing the authors' own position and even less time (!) exegeting any Scripture passages. In fact I'm not sure it can be said that any passages of Scripture are exegeted. Instead, the authors provide their different verses and interpretations to some passages that all parties appeal to (the Rich Young Man passage).

While I am in 100% agreement with the authors in this book, I find it frustrating that so little exegesis is being done. Like another more recent book which Michael Horton edited dealing with similar issues "Justified"(this time between John Piper and N. T. Wright), too much time is spent simply saying "But this is what the Reformers thought..." In the end, I'm tempted to say "WHO CARES!?" Why should anyone give a crap what the position of the Reformers taught if it's not in line with Scripture? Knowing that John Calvin or B.B. Warfield said "so and so" isn't going to help me respond to someone who tries to argue their case from Scripture. At best, I'll be able to show that they don't belong in the Reformed tradition.

I'm giving the book two stars because it laid out the positions and distinctions clearly between MacArthur, Hodges, and the others. I'm giving the book another star (totaling 3, for the mathematically challenged) because I agree with the authors of the book. But ultimately Michael Horton & Co. are going to have to rely on something more than their tradition if they want convince more than those who are already convinced.

[Steve Herreid · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought this book was OK.

I really had high hopes that it would be a definitive refutation of free grace theology. That expectation was disappointed. The book is a collection of essays that examines several facets of the conflict between proponents of "lordship salvation" (MacArthur) and those of "free grace theology" (Hodges). It attempts to steer a middle ground between the two poles, though in fact being much closer to MacArthur's position than Hodges's. There were some very good observations scattered throughout the book, but in my opinion it was not written or argued tightly enough to be truly effective. My own personal point of view is very close to that of the authors, but I was already convinced before taking up the book.

[Troy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Edited by Michael Horton, this book is a series of articles on the lordship controversy that raged between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges back in the late 1980's. Surprisingly, the book is critical of both viewpoints, although somewhat more sympathetic to MacArthur. Different authors wrote different chapters, which likely explains some needless repetition on certain points. However, the best chapters were those written by Horton himself. This book would be useful for one struggling with assurance of salvation.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a compilation of Reformed and Lutheran scholars in response to the mess in dispensational circles between John MacArthur (Lordship Salvation) and Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie (free grace). The book cites Scripture often and shows how both of those camps are in error. They agree more with MacArthur (rightly). Highly recommended. Avoid the license of the free grace position and the legalism of the Lordship position.

[Jason Rivera · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book ever on the Lordship Salvation. A critique and then a solution of the issue. Avoids the legalistic direction of John MacArthur as well as the antinomian silliness of the non-Lordship guys.